Fair enough that you might find the "hostile invading force" rhetoric distasteful, but who are you to decide, for others, what is legitimate language in the context of this debate? You of course have the right to judge them on their words, but not to ban them from expressing their views.

They are illegal migrants. They have turned up without a valid visa and are now living here at the taxpayer's pleasure. If I were to do that in another country, I would expect to be swiftly deported.

Yep. This sort of sophistry does not convince anyone - and I think it would be actively harmful to his argument, were his audience larger than 100 BlueSkyers who are already convinced.

Agreed. Also, anybody who values London as a place with labour laws. The rates of illegal working in this sector must be off the charts.

Interesting. I'd say that "British" is the "civic" state - a compromise for those who fit culturally but not ethnically. "English", however, is an ethnicity - in the same way that "Yoruba" or "Han" might be. That's why "British" is a useful category, in a way.

I am struggling to make out your argument, unless you really are saying that being British has nothing at all to do with ethnicity. Do you agree with figures like Goodwin that there is a distinction between "civic" and "ethnic" Britishness, or does one have to be ethnically British to belong?

It would be, but it won't last that long. Its existence today is due to an unusually numerous cohort of pensioners keeping it in place through democratic dominance. Most of those paying for it now who are 40 and under IMV won't get it - the state finances would just collapse before that point.

Big problem with this is that any negative externalities of this "community sponsorship" would spill over far beyond the small inviting group. If eg a running club invites, it won't just be their taxes, public safety, housing supply adversely affected - it'll be everyone's. Very tough sell surely?

Interesting. Why do you think we don't see any urgency from government on this? If Starmer et al really believed it to be true, surely we'd be hugely increasing spending on our dilapidated armed forces or even making it easier for public sector bodies to recruit good people?

If you think cutting migration costs the British taxpayer money rather than saving them money, I don't know what to say to you. We are operating with a very different set of "facts". I agree there's no point continuing the debate; neither of us will convince the other.

I note that nowhere do you attempt an actual argument or any rebuttal at all of my overall point that immigration has been far too high, has hugely damaged the prospects of especially young Brits, and is rightly top of the agenda for the public.

Doesn't that really just describe every diplomat?

Baselessly implying someone is racist for daring to notice the very high levels of immigration of recent years just doesn't work anymore. It's a different time. All the best.

I don't know about your circumstances, but the explosion in people coming over to work in low value-add occupations like Uber (Eats), kebab shops, hand carwashes etc is now impossible to avoid if you live in a town/city and open your eyes when leaving the house. No wonder the public are sick of it.

Yes, and due to the huge upheaval of Covid afterwards (same time as the Boriswave), lots of people didn't notice that some of the changes they ascribed to Brexit/Covid were actually more to do with insane levels of low/no-wage immigration. That's my theory.

If we've had an "onerous" immigration system over the last few years, then I'd hate to see a liberal one. Virtually anyone from the 3rd world who claimed to be coming for eg social or chef work got in, judging by my local area (and the official stats). We hit 1m+ arrivals in some years! Insanity.

This is inevitable in a system where citizenship is granted so cheaply. The average Brit (if they knew the facts) would not be struck by the unfairness of removing El-Fattah's citizenship - rather, by how lax the system is that someone with no real link to Britain was granted it in the first place.

I respect the attempt, but the truth is that many people on Bluesky start from the premise that everything is fine with non-EU immigration and that any attempt to point out blatant gaming of the system is an unwarranted all-out attack. Fair play for trying though.